JUDGMENT ANIL KUMAR, J. - Heard Sri M. M. Deewan, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Sanjay Sareen, learned counsel for the respondent. The facts of the present case in brief, are that Bharti Chappal Store, Lalpalpur, Hardoi (hereinabove referred to as, "the revisionist") is a proprietorship firm which was dealing in purchase and sales of cheap quality footwear and is registered under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. For the assessment year 1997-1998 notice was issued by the assessing authority to the revisionist and in response to the said notice, the revisionist had disclosed gross and net sales of Rs. 7,94,363 and Rs. 7,87,922, respectively. The assessing authority after taking into account the fact and the material evidence on record rejected the book version of the revisionist and determined the net turnover of Rs. 15,00,000 and on the basis of the same by way of best judgment passed the assessment order dated June 23, 1999 thereby creating demand of Rs. 34,203. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal under section 9(1) of the Act was filed against the above order before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal), Trade Tax, Lucknow and the same was dismissed by order dated March 19, 2001. Order dated March 19, 2001 was challenged by the revisionist by way of Second Appeal No. 153 of 2001 (1997-98) under section 10(2) of the Act before the U.P. Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench III, Lucknow and the same was also dismissed by order dated June 4, 2003. Aggrieved by the said order dated June 4, 2003 passed by the Tribunal, present revision has been filed by the revisionist before this court. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist maintains the regular books of account with full details in respect to the purchases and sale vouchers and on March 11, 1998 a survey was conducted by the Trade Tax Officer, Sitapur and in the said survey no lose papers were found and no adverse material was deducted. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist maintains the regular books of account with full details in respect to the purchases and sale vouchers and on March 11, 1998 a survey was conducted by the Trade Tax Officer, Sitapur and in the said survey no lose papers were found and no adverse material was deducted. It was further submitted that no unnumbered bills were found and if there is any such unnumbered bill was found then a request in this regard was made by the revisionist to the assessing authority to supply the copies of such unnumbered bills so that the handwriting on these bills be got verified with the handwriting of the revisionist or his son who looks after the business from the copies of the regular bills issued by them but the same was not given to the revisionist. It was further submitted that the revisionist had also submitted before the assessing authority that some person on account of some enmity or ill will with the revisionist might have got these bills prepared alleging the same pertains to the revisionist whereas the revisionist had no connection with these bills and further the revisionist has sought for an opportunity to cross-examine the person furnishing such material but the same was allowed. As such the said action is against the principle of natural justice and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. In view of the above, learned counsel for the revisionist has pressed the present revision on the following grounds : (i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to reject the book version and make best judgment assessment on the basis of the unnumbered bills furnished by the complainant to the Trade Tax Officer (S.I.B.) alleging them to relate to the revisionist without supplying the copies of such bills to the revisionist whereas the revisionist had categorically denied issuing any such bills and had specifically requested to supply copies of these bills or to show these bills to him ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower authorities were legally justified to deny the revisionist an opportunity of cross-examining the complainant who had furnished the unnumbered bills to the Trade Tax Officer (S.I.B.) in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. (ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower authorities were legally justified to deny the revisionist an opportunity of cross-examining the complainant who had furnished the unnumbered bills to the Trade Tax Officer (S.I.B.) in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel for the revisionist in support of above arguments has relied upon the following judgments : (1) Keshav Dass Virendra Kumar, Jhansi v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1993] UPTC 26. (2) Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Faqir Chand Hazari Mal [1981] UPTC 656. (3) Pawan Kumar Sandeep Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1986] UPTC 309. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the case of Keshav Dass Virendra Kumar, Jhansi v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1993] UPTC 26 this court has held that the Tribunal noticed that the assessee was denied opportunity of cross-examination and summoning the records. Yet it did not give any finding on the question at all. The rules of natural justice require that whenever some material is used against a party then either copy of that document should be supplied to that party or he should be permitted to inspect the same. In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Faqir Chand Hazari Mal [1981] UPTC 656 this court has held that no material can be relied with which the assessee is not confronted. In the case of Pawan Kumar Sandeep Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1986] UPTC 309 this court has held that it is well-settled that in case the authorities want to rely on, the entries made in the books of account of third person and if the assessee makes a request to cross-examine the said person, the authority should afford an opportunity to the assessee. In these cases, since the request was made by the assessee before the assessing authority himself, the assessing authority should have summoned the proprietor/partner of M/s. Mool Chand Multan Singh for cross-examination. Since that has not been done, in my opinion, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. As I am sending the case back to the assessing authority, it is not necessary at this stage to go into the other controversy involved in the case. Since that has not been done, in my opinion, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. As I am sending the case back to the assessing authority, it is not necessary at this stage to go into the other controversy involved in the case. From the perusal of the order passed by the assessing authority, it is cristal clear that the categorical finding of fact has been given by the assessing authority that the assessee does not maintain the account book properly rather he keep receipts/cash memo of the sale and purchases and the findings were also recorded to the effect that the cash book and stock register were not properly maintained thereby showing the entry in respect to the details of sale and purchase as a result of which it cannot be verified that what is actually sale and what is the profit thereupon and in view of the said fact the book version of the assessee was rejected. Further, the findings of fact was also recorded by the authority concerned that on the basis of complaint made by the assessee in respect to the allegation of the revisionist that duplicate unnumbered bills were forgedly prepared by some person who got enmity against him. An enquiry was instituted which was conducted by Special Investigating Branch, Sitapur and in the said enquiry the officer of Special Investigating Branch had called the assessee to put forward his claim. However, the assessee wilfully and deliberately had not appeared before the enquiry officer in order to get his complaint investigated. As such a reasonable opportunity had been provided to the revisionist to put forth his case before the enquiry officer in order to investigate the same but the assessee himself with oblique motive and purpose has not availed of the said opportunity. As such now the assessee cannot make a grievance that he has not been provided any opportunity in the present case. The said findings of fact recorded by the assessing authority were confirmed by the appellate authority as well as by the Tribunal by dismissing the second appeal by order dated June 4, 2003. As such now the assessee cannot make a grievance that he has not been provided any opportunity in the present case. The said findings of fact recorded by the assessing authority were confirmed by the appellate authority as well as by the Tribunal by dismissing the second appeal by order dated June 4, 2003. Further, on the basis of the material on record after rejection of the book version of the revisionist, the assessing authority on the basis of the turnover passed the best judgment against the assessee which was confirmed by the Tribunal. It is established principle of law that the assessment is not a question of law but is a question of fact and as per established proposition of law this court while exercising of power of judicial review under section 11 of the Trade Tax Act, 1948 can interfere in the order passed by the Tribunal only if the question of law is involved as in the present case no question of law is involved rather order passed by the Tribunal is concluded by findings of fact. So there is not need to interfere in the matter in question while exercising the revisional power. In these circumstances, the assessee cannot take a plea that no opportunity has been given to him to establish his case. In view of the abovesaid fact, the order of the Tribunal which is under challenge in the present revision cannot be assailed on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the revisionist and the order which is passed by the Tribunal is in violation of principles of natural justice. Moreover, acceptance or rejection of explanation is the realm of the Tribunal which is the last fact finding authority. Non-acceptance of explanation by the Tribunal on sufficient grounds, is no ground for interference by this court in its revisional jurisdiction as held by this court in the case of D.C.M. Toyota Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [2010] 33 VST 597; [2009] UPTC 613. In the present case, the matter relates to the year 1997-98 and the book version of the assessee was rejected by the three authorities below by giving concurrent findings of fact. So there is no illegality or perversity in the order which is under challenge. No question of law is involved in the present case. In view of the above, the revision is dismissed. So there is no illegality or perversity in the order which is under challenge. No question of law is involved in the present case. In view of the above, the revision is dismissed. No order as to costs.